Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 23

Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???
Hello!

Since a year, many of us Wikipedians trying to add logo of Bangladesh football federation.svg on Bangladesh national football team & Bangladesh women's national football team. But everytime someone is deleting showing the reason: It was removed in accordance with the non-free content policy, with which you are obligated to comply.

My question is If we can't use that public domain logo how Argentina, India, Brazil and other national football teams are using their respective federation logo?

Also, this exact same logo is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). See here: Men's National & Women's National

Please help by adding the logo and add some sort of file protection so that others don't delete this again!

At the end, it represents Bangladesh to the world with pride! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HridoyKundu (talk • contribs) 16:37, March 16, 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of non-free images such as the Bangladesh Football Federation logo must comply with policy. The use of this logo for identification on the article about the federation is acceptable, but uses on team articles which are considered child entities of the federation are not.  See Non-free Content examples of unacceptable image use, and specifically item 17 which states that the use of the parent entitiy's logo is not acceptable for use as identification in the child entity's article.  In this case, the child entities are the men's and women's national squads.  As for the usage on the Bangladesh wiki, each wiki has its own policies.  I do not know if the usage on that wiki complies with their policies or not, but that is irrelevant with respect to its usage here on the English wiki, the use in articles aside from the federation article does not comply with non-free content policy.  For ffuture refeences, this type of question would be btter posted at Media Copyright Questions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I asked many administrators but all of their answers were unclear and unsatisfied. The best they said the policy Bengali wiki is different from English wiki so you can't use that here. Ok I agree! Then how other national teams are using? Like: India Men's National Football Team, Brazil Men's National Football Team etc. Their federation logo also comes under public domain. So how are they using? Aren't they
 * violating copyrights?
 * My simple request: Either add the Bangladesh Football Federation.svg logo to national football teams with file protection or delete all the federation logos from their respective football teams.
 * Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The same thing is being discussed at WP:MCQ. So, it's probably best to keep all relevant discussion there to avoid redundancy and confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael Faraday
Hello! I noticed the Royal Institution source "Faraday sent copies of his scientific paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to scientific colleagues all over the world so they too could witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations themselves" vs our text "Faraday published the results of his discovery in the Quarterly Journal of Science, and sent copies of his paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to colleagues around the world so they could also witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations" (as summarized by @DuncanHill) in the Michael Faraday article. I was recommended to discuss it here. Thx in advance, SwampedEssayist (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed the passage in question. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Despair not :)
(and and ), re this edit summary, despair not :). I believe I have gone through now almost all of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, and identified those articles that are almost entirely DC content for submission to WP:CP.  I may still find some stragglers, but from WP:DCGAR, I am fairly certain that you will find the workload goes away in about six more days.  At most, if I continue to find WP:CP candidates from the DC CCI, they will be sporadic.  Hang in there, and thanks for all the work! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work on this, SandyGeorgia, I know how mind-numbing CCI can be (and just don't know how manages to keep at it so tirelessly!). Just a thought: as I understand it, if a CCI subject was not the first editor of a page (i.e., it was created by someone else), then any editor in good standing is completely free to revert to the last revision before the first edit by the CCI editor. There's no need need to blank or list it, just revert, stick a cclean on the talk-page, and request revdel if that seems appropriate. Anyway, thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is also the understanding I have been working under, and I have only been sending to WP:CP those that were a) created by DC, and b) almost all DC content still. So I do hope I have by now listed all of those, so that as you work through the next six days, we should be mostly done with that side of things. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I second JLAN's thanks emphatically. What I do is many times easier than the tedium of cleaning it up via ordinary editing - it's just my time was short last week. MER-C 20:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, was actually just about to ask what the ETA was (I've found some more foundational cv I wanted to send here to be safe but I've been holding off to avoid blowing this up too much). Thanks for all the help, making that significant a dent in what would've otherwise been a painful CCI to sift through makes things so much easier going forward. Honestly I'm just thankful that people are generally ok with just scrapping the edits of the worst offenders, if we actually had to manually check every single ref on some of these I wouldn't even bother trying. Wizardman  21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, there are still boatloads of pages to be checked and still many more diffs to be processed; I fear the easiest work (identifying those created by DC that could be deleted) is done, and the hard part is ahead on the CCI, but at least we should be off of this page for now, if that makes it feel less overwhelming. Now it's back to page by page, diff by diff, and reverting to the last version before DC may be the best option for many. Thanks to all, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Can not login to CopyPatrol
I can not currently login to CopyPatrol (I can open the page and review the articles but can not mark them as done), do other people also experience the same problem? Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me.  Hut 8.5  10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Still does not work for me. When I press the login button the page gets reloaded but I am still not logged in. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See Village pump (technical). I still cannot log in. -- Whpq (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, trying several times worked indeed for me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

John Caldwell (Michigan representative)
Could an admin help me sort the history of John Caldwell (Michigan representative)? It appears there was a previous delete and history merge, and the first two edits in the history of the article don't seem to tell the entire story, based on the edit summary of the second edit. In this case, I'm trying to determine if the author of the original content is DC, as he self-identifies on Wikipedia as Caldwell, not Coldwell (a name he used on Wikipedia) from Michigan, and he uploaded family images including Caldwell's personal legislative book and How much I can PDEL, and whether this article should go to WP:CP based on offline sources depends on who wrote all that original content (and evaluating for COI may also be in order). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * family photos of unknown origin and
 * images he says the "Caldwell family" release to the public domain.


 * It looks like the page was started at John Caldwell (Michigan state representative) (or at least that's where the page has ended up) and the history merge missed some of the edits. The first version was by Doug Coldwell. There isn't any meaningful deleted history, John Caldwell (Michigan representative) has one deleted edit and it's a redirect. I've checked Doug Coldwell's deleted edits, I can only see two on any variation of this title, one's a redirect and the other's a page move.  Hut 8.5  17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much; that will help. Pretty sick of DC content for today, so will look tomorrow; much appreciated. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is copying a blog post to a sandbox a copyright violation?
I saw this: User talk:Manish kumar 675/sandbox which came from this. The copyright problems page only talks about articles, not user sandboxes or other user pages. It's possible the editor is going to try to rewrite it and turn it into an article. STEM info (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Copyright policy applies to all name spaces. I have deleted the sandbox as a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Do e-mail exchanges with content experts need to be stored somewhere?
A question has arisen about my methodology when adding sentences to Wikipedia articles that were sent to me by content experts via e-mail. Those sentences are not copyright violations as they are "own words / new words / original text" so that is not the problem. The question is rather whether the e-mail exchanges with those content experts need to be stored somewhere, or their explicit permission to use their words needs to be stored? If so where should it be stored, for how long, including their actual name and e-mail address?

The reason for asking is that technically they don't click on the little box saying "By writing text for Wikipedia, you agree to Wikipedia's Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." but I do (on their behalf if you like). Further background to this question is available here.

Often times their proposed sentences are not added directly as they are but modified by me (e.g. to make them easier to understand) so technically, that content then becomes "my content" anyhow, not theirs, right? So in a way, they are rather advisers to my editing rather than ghost editors themselves. The content experts that I work with have all been given the option to edit directly themselves but most of them have declined that option and are rather sending me marked-up Word documents of the Wikipedia articles to show me what - in their opinion - needs changing. EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are adding someone else's text to Wikipedia, see the consent that we need from the author. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi JJMC89, thanks for your reply. I've used that consent form in the past for when people donated images. I haven't used it for when people send me snippets of sentences for Wikipedia articles which I often tend to modify a bit to make their reading ease easier. I see that kind of "text" more like "advice & suggestions" by experts on how a Wikipedia article could be modified. There is not one particular "text block" that we could send with that consent form. It's basically "suggested edits by someone off wiki in a private channel". We also ensure a "good faith, clear and transparent interaction with the experts with the full knowledge it would be published on Wikipedia" (which is how User:Sadads wrote it here). Do you agree with that? EMsmile (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on talkpage
This person has a page on talk that they say was previously submitted as a university thesis. I've left a message on the talkpage but no response for more than a week - I'm not sure whether I should use the copyvio tag or not, I can't find a relevant policy about talkpages and this specific scenario User:Aquaticonions/Beyond_the_Neutral_Point_of_View JMWt (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Which page? Secretlondon (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Unknown CC
Hi all, what is the license here? Proeksad (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good question, ! – this page is far from clear. I have a similar one about this; you've changed the attribution at Luigi Bisi to CC BY-SA 3.0, which is indeed what the website said in 2015, but not in 2012. I added the CC-notice without specifying the CC BY-SA version; it seems that the template defaults to 1.0.
 * Questions: is that a good thing? should the attribution be updated if it changes, or remain as it was when the text was added? and should the attribution template remain in the article even if all the copied text has been removed/replaced (of course old revisions that do contain copied content will also contain attribution for it). I wish I wasn't so hazy about all this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In 2014 Creative Commons clarified that BY-SA 1.0 is not compatible with other versions. So Wikipedia cannot use such texts. From my point of view, we can update if the author did it or probably did it. CC BY-SA is not necessarily CC BY-SA 1.0, it can be any version. 1.0 appeared in 2002, 2.0 — 2004, 2.5 — 2005, 3.0 — 2007, 4.0 — 2013. Proeksad (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * GFDL, CC BY-SA 3.0 or dual: ? What will we do with article Information commons? Proeksad (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

An article that's on the Wikipedia is a direct copy of a draft I and a few others made
The article Modhalum Kadhalum directly copies all content from the declined draft submission I made Draft:Modhalum Kaadhalum, with the help of a few others (mainly @Aspiringeditor1 with everyone else on the history page), without being mentioned in any way. It would be helpful if there can be a reasonable solution to this. Tirishan (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I was going to second this and @Tirishan himself on his talk page about this - it doesn't seem fair that a user can just copy and paste a majority of our work like that, I did edit on Modhalum Kadhalum - you can see that on view history but that was mostly grammar and english based - not copypasting our work on this new article because that's just stupid. Also, if there is no verdict on AfC it would be easier to just move to mainspace, no? Also the creator of Modhalum Kadhalum seems to have done a cut-and-paste move with their article they have made, it was moved from mainspace from draftspace and the creator has just moved it again to mainspace making a redirect for the new page from the draft. Aspiringeditor1  (talk)11:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * From @Samyazh talk page, looks like @DoubleGrazing declined the AfC request. Did you forget to actually move the page? If not, please consider this issue. Tirishan (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved it from mainspace into draftspace under the new title Draft:Modhalum Kadhalum 2, as well. no need for it to be in mainspace when it copies our article + it was declined.  Aspiringeditor1  (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it at first, but after further investigation I did see enough copying from the original draft to the newer one to perform a history merge (and then a post-merge page move to fix the page title). DanCherek (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Cv-unsure useful to you?
I personally don't find this useful or helpful in cleaning up and identifying copyvio - I spend way too much time hunting down a potential source that may very well be dead, or not even cited in the article. If other people here also don't find it useful, then I will probably start a wider discussion for deprecation, but if people do still find it useful, I will leave it be. Sennecaster ( Chat ) 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In response to your request for comment at Discord. For me, it looks like an overlap of Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections as it's tagging an article with potential copyvio without an URL. The difference is that it's tagging the talk page, and not the article. I think combining the cv-unsure ones into copied and pasted articles would be better. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Six articles are currently tagged with this in the last five years. It should be merged per above once the existing members are run down. MER-C 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Deputy June 2023 User Experience Survey
Hello! I'm Chlod, the developer of Deputy. You may have heard of this tool before or you may be an active user, but in case you haven't heard of it prior, it's a tool for streamlining some of the copyright cleanup work on this wiki.

I'm currently holding a survey to gauge editors' experience of the tool, be it as a user or a non-user. You're invited to participate, even if you don't use Deputy! The responses collected will help improve the tool and, if you're not a user, help make Deputy work smoothly with how you do your work.

The survey can be found here, and you can learn more about this survey on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback needed on pending TFA (July 5)
Can the amazing folks who work this page take a look at a close paraphrasing concern in an upcoming TFA and provide some feedback? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Opinions solicited on mixed lyrics/list copyright issue
I would appreciate the input of any copyright experts at. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Trimming the introduction
Currently, half of CP is taken up by instructions that largely duplicate existing policy pages. As mentioned by others, the problem is that CP used to (and to a degree still is) largely be a hub for copyright instructions so information like backwards copy, etc still links here, despite the prevalence of many alternative pages that such guidance could (and should) be included on. I have a few suggestions: There is a broader problem involving a lack of cohesion on copyright guidance pages; the copyright sidebar contains a score of links that contain large amounts of overlap: perhaps merging some of these should be considered.
 * Collapse Noticeboard links
 * Move sections that are explicit copies of other guidelines and instead provide a clear table of links for them, similar to ANI's header
 * Give brief instructions on filing a CP listing and for more detailed information link to a subpage
 * Completely move clerk/admin instructions to a separate page as most whom use the page do not need this info.

For now however, I think moving some of the instructions that have broader impacts outside of CP, e.g. backwards copy should be a focus and I might boldly do that if there are no objections. I think the status quo is more overwhelming for reporters than actually useful. –  I s o chrone (T) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * tl;dr, split off content on the CP instructions to other pages and remove redundant info –  I s o chrone (T) 12:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Copyvio § Making the template more intuitive
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Copyvio § Making the template more intuitive. –  I s o chrone (T) 13:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days. is being discussed. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsure if this is a violation
Please see here. I included a too many quotations tag on the page but it was removed, with the justification there is only one quotation (no there are many!), and posted to the main page as an RD! Need advice on whether this is actually copyvio, given they're all quotations. Polyamorph (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * see WP:In_the_news/Candidates Polyamorph (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. as it's on the main page I don't want to re-tag it, hence asking here instead of submitting a report. Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:OpenAI
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:OpenAI. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:AI-generated notification
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:AI-generated notification. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Unclear instructions
The instructions at WP:CP for using copyvio seem inconsistent with how said template actually works. CP says to replace the text with, while the way the template works, and as the template itself says, one is meant to put above the problematic text, and copyvio/bottom below. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Maddy from Celeste: I believe copyvio is meant for when the entire article is problematic. Adding copyvio/bottom is meant for when only a portion of the article is problematic. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @ARandomName123 Maddy from Celeste; Reworded with this edit. There are people that blank it (especially if intending for deletion) but if there's going to be selective removals it's best to just let the template hide the content from reader view. People don't know about copyvio/bottom so I added a little qualifier for that as well. Thanks for bringing this up! Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 01:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's excellent! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:AFI 100 Years... series is a wretched hive of scum and villainy
I don't want to put this in a normal report because it concerns an entire category of not-entirely-obscure pages which have been copyvio for many long years, so I infer that something unusual might be going on such that the pages are maybe de facto protected or something, and that's out of scope for a bog-normal report. You guys figure it out.

So, every article in Category:AFI 100 Years... series is list articles, and all (I think) consist mainly of the complete lists -- 100 entries, usually. The lists were produced by the AFI, American Film Institute, based on a vote), which:
 * The AFI decided who would get to vote. ("over 1,000 leaders in the creative industry") -- intellectual work.
 * The AFI decided which works would be on the ballots given to the voters -- intellectual work.
 * Each voter made subjective judgements. -- intellectual work, altho the voters aren't copyright holders.
 * (For whatever it's worth, at least some of these lists were published in books, which if still in print would cause financial harm to AFI. (I'm virtually sure the books aren't in print, but still; and people selling their used copies could lose sales.)

I don't know if the AFI then made a purely mechanical tabulation of votes (I'm sure they didn't legally bind themselves to have no right to tweak the list orders, so who knows how it went down) but even if so, that doesn't cancel the earlier work.

So if these aren't copyvio lists I don't know what would be. Herostratus (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You are right about lists like these in general. But see the template at the top of Talk:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies and the talk page discussion there. AFI put the lists in the public domain. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez I'm an idiot, I did look at talk on a couple of the pages but not that one, and didn't notice that, sorry to bother, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Freedom of panorama (US only)" and the Berne convention
Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template Freedom of panorama (US only), under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which images of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, are clearly under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. It has no obvious exception for "if that same image were hypothetically taken of a different building in a different country that had FOP it would not be encumbered by copyright". To me this seems as specious as "if this artwork were painted by a different person in a different country it would not be copyrighted" or "because this foreign work was not registered for copyright in the US it does not count as copyrighted" or "because we want to have images of these buildings we should be allowed to violate copyright". But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think its not exactly clear that a photo taken in France but first published in America is necessarily considered to be a French work. I believe its open to interpretation. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What does this sentence even mean?
“ New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports.”

Come on. Please fix this.  Volunteer Marek  17:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes that isn't clear, I've rephrased it now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright templates
There is a discussion about copyright templates which could use some additional input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio on a talk page
Sorry, I couldn't work out the right way to report this, but someone has pasted full copyrighted lyrics at Talk:Simple Twist of Fate, in the section "third person". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of it. If you come across something like this in the future, you can remove the copyrighted content, and then tag the page for revision deletion using copyvio-revdel and filling in the appropriate parameters. -- Whpq (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving instructions not directly related to Copyright problems
What the title says. The page is clunky, and the actual "problems" require a decent amount of scrolling to get to. The instructions are long, not friendly to new people to begin with, and is either duplicated or contradicted in other areas. The non-listings part of this entire page is treated as basically SOP policy/guideline/guide by the community, and hosting it on what's essentially a daily "to do" list is probably not the best. So. Here's a few solutions that I thought of, others probably have better ones. These can be considered independently. TLDR; page long, guidance should be put elsewhere. Thanks, Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Split the instructions into its own page, titled something like "Copyright cleanup instructions".
 * 2) Rewrite it to be less wordy in all areas.
 * 3) A lot of the cleanup instructions are essentially mirrored over at WP:CV101, so we could condense everything that isn't specific to copyright problems over to that and link it.
 * 4) Rewrite other policies, guides, and guidelines to contain the guidance at CP (some of it is already thereand remove it entirely.
 * The main problem I see is with WP:BACKWARDSCOPY... it could go into WP:CV101 but if we are to move out stuff from here that page should be completely restructured really. –  Iso chrone (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if content is moved out, then WP:Copyrights needs to be amended as appropriate, as it links here. –  Iso chrone (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've rearranged the header a bit-- I'm considering moving the backwardscopy instructions to CV101 if there aren't any objections? I know it isn't great but it seems to be the most relevant page. The other solution is making a new page altogether for most of this stuff, but I doubt adding another explanatory essay is going to make anyone happy. –  Iso chrone (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:IOWN and should be merged into WP:CV. Most of rewriting can be merged into WP:CV with a bit of relevant stuff about rewriting on CP pages specifically kept. Obtaining/verifying permissions section is duplicated in WP:Requesting copyright permission and WP:CV. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 19:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have boldly merged WP:BACKWARDSCOPY into WP:Mirrors and forks, and have significantly changed the wording of it to make it more understandable to non-copyright versed editors. Hopefully it's fine. –  Iso chrone (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Updated CPC template. I have removed deletedcup, because I do not think it is used in our current workflow with how VRT and CP interact. I've changed the VRT parameter to read more about that permission is pending; this can happen with or without temporary deletion of the content. Unverified as a parameter was kind of a "pending, will need deletion", so I just changed it into a verification fail parameter for when VRT cannot accept a licensing request. more rationale at CPC talk. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 18:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

List of dog diseases containing references that link to potential copyright violations.
On the aforementioned article are multiple references using Wikia's 'nocookie.net' domain to host PDFs such as: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/diabetesindogs/images/d/d5/Providing_care_veterinary_diabetics.pdf These do not appear to be open access journals and given what Wikia is, I believe these are illegally hosted here and I presume referencing/linking to them on Wikipedia may be a copyright issue, although I am not sure. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Solidifying the request review timeframe
It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the copyvio template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".

Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days. – Iso chrone (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We get around to it when we get around to it, except for presumptive deletion which is 7 days. See WT:Copyright problems/Archive 23. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather Archive 22: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 22. Boud (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ping
Any chance of cleaning up Copyright problems/2024 May 11 = June 2024 Ukraine peace summit? Until this is cleaned up, all post-infringement edits will likely be part of the revdel sequence (presumably from 10:40, 11 May 2024‎ to whatever the last edit is when revdel-ing), which might be annoying to people who want to know what's in the edits. This article is likely to get more attention over the next few weeks, and hit major media headlines around 15-16 June. Boud (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Dealt with. Next time, simply removing the paragraph and using an RD1 request may be more efficient. Thanks for raising it for attention. MLauba (Talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks! Next time I'll use Copyvio-revdel if in my judgment the case is simple enough. From a random sampling of a few of Category:Requested RD1 redactions, it looks like these get handled quickly - all the ones I checked are dated today. This would also reduce the number of versions of a given article that are revdel'd. Boud (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)